The United States IS a Christian Nation

[JBeukema]

Really? "In God We Trust" comes close to establishing an official religion, does it? Tell me. Specifically which religious denomination does "In God We Trust" establish as the official religion of the United States?

neochristianity, as I already demonstrated

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't give a rat's ass what religion or non religion the floundering fathers were.

We live in a secular society with religious freedom and we're better off as a result of that.

And thanks to that, we have established our right to wear our religion on our sleeves...at work, away from work, on public land, in our speeches...regardless of who or where we are.

 

[AllieBaba]

Really? "In God We Trust" comes close to establishing an official religion, does it? Tell me. Specifically which religious denomination does "In God We Trust" establish as the official religion of the United States?

neochristianity, as I already demonstrated

You haven't demonstrated anything except your narrow minded bigotry. But thanks for that.

 

[JBeukema]

Only the neochristian tradition and its branches refers to their god as 'God'


therefore 'In God we trust'= In El/YHWH we trust' = official recognition of a state religion = violation of the 1st amendment

 

[AllieBaba]

Nice try.

 

[JBeukema]

Nice try.

Translation: I have no response because you're tight


You have no counterpoint, so you evade.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's beneath responding to. It's old, trite, and boring.

 

[JBeukema]

In other words, you're tired of being shown to be a fool... then just stop posting

 

[mattskramer]

Oh, dear God, the old "they owned slaves, so it's okay to ignore the law as written" argument. Sorry, Sparky, but the law is still the law, so just read it and spare us the attempts at lofty condescension, okay? The Founding Fathers were products of their time, just as you are a product of yours, and it's laughable for you to assume that you are morally superior to them simply because you live in a time that tells you slavery is wrong and they didn't. THEY had the wisdom and moral fortitude to buck the conventions of their time and try to create something new and better, something which just happened to open the door for black people to one day take their place as free citizens. Do you really believe that YOU would do as well without a hundred years of history to do your moral thinking for you?

I was responding to Allie Baba’s implication that our founding fathers were such great and practically perfect people. As I said, they had their biases. Thankfully, that provided us with a flexible living document (The Constitution).

I don't think Allie said anything of the sort. And the Constitution is not "living", nor is it particularly flexible. If you actually follow the law, instead of just twisting the meaning whenever you want, it's damned hard to change.

As for the law, The US Constitution – the supreme law of the land – says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Technically, having the phrase “In God we trust” on our currency is not the equivalent of congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion, it does come close. The removal of references to God will not prohibit people from exercising their religious freedom.

Really? "In God We Trust" comes close to establishing an official religion, does it? Tell me. Specifically which religious denomination does "In God We Trust" establish as the official religion of the United States?

Nothing about the Constitution requires the government to be hostile to religion, or pretend it doesn't exist, or ignore the relentlessly Christian history of our nation. And technically, how is it harming you, anyway? Most people don't even look at the money beyond checking the number.

I didn't say that Allie said it. I said that he implied it. He seems to have great reverence for the founding fathers based on how often he mentions them. The Constitution is a "living" and flexible document. Our Supreme Court is allowed to interpret it in light of modern circumstances. Their interpretation might run contrary to how some people would think that the original authors would interpret it.

The authors of the Constitution were clearly aware that changes would be necessary from time to time if the Constitution was to endure and cope with the effects of the anticipated growth of the nation. They devise a dual process by which the Constitution could be altered.

Amending the Constitution is a two-part process: amendments must be proposed and then they must be ratified. Amendments can be proposed one of two ways. The only way that has been used to date is through a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress. Alternatively, two-thirds of the legislatures of the States can call a Constitutional Convention to consider one or more amendments.

Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states, a process called ratification. Depending on the amendment, this requires either the state legislatures or special state conventions to approve the amendment by simple majority vote. Amendments generally go to state legislatures to be ratified, only the Twenty-first Amendment called for special state conventions.

I think that two thirds of congress (little more than 66 percent), followed by three fourths of the states, is not much of a requirement. Therefore, in my opinion, the Constitution is rather flexible.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. First of all I did not say that the phrase establishes an official religion. Second of all, I did not even say, “religious denomination”. The phrase recognizes monotheistic religions over all others.

Government references to god do not harm me. Still, I think that it would be better for America that such references be removed simply out of respect for atheist and agnostic Americans. Why do you think that they should remain? Do believers need them?

 

[Southpaw]

This is not a Christian nation. The words 'god' and 'Christ' never appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

Have you read the Declaration recently? It quite clearly uses the word 'God' and other euphemisms.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

(snip snip)

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Personally, I think the arguments over whether or not America is a 'Christian' nation are fruitless. They boil down to semantics and subjective personal experience. Furthermore, we can probably all agree on 2 things: most Americans don't follow the morality presented in the Bible well at all and it is probably a good thing that Americans are not forced to be Christians as some Islamic countries do for Muslims.

 

[mattskramer]

This is not a Christian nation. The words 'god' and 'Christ' never appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

Have you read the Declaration recently? It quite clearly uses the word 'God' and other euphemisms.

Thankfully, the Declaration is not the Constitution.

 

[Southpaw]

This is not a Christian nation. The words 'god' and 'Christ' never appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

Have you read the Declaration recently? It quite clearly uses the word 'God' and other euphemisms.

Thankfully, the Declaration is not the Constitution.

I didn't say it was. I corrected a person who claimed the word 'god' was not in the DoI.

 

[Pyrite]

I didn't say it was. I corrected a person who claimed the word 'god' was not in the DoI.

Unless I'm mistaken, the word "God" does not appear in the DoI. They use the much more general and universal word "Creator". But let me check my copy in case there's something I've missed...

Right, the reference to "The laws of Nature and Nature's God" which entitles us to "seperate and equal station" with England.

at least that's what I think the first paragraph of the DoI is saying. The founders aparently had a deep love for very long sentences with many asides.

In any case, "Nature's God" is again a much more general term than simply "God".

 

[GHook93]

Better way to put it, is American is a Secular Judeo-Christian Nation!

 

[JBeukema]

the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God

sounds like deism- a far cry from Christianity

 

[Southpaw]

I didn't say it was. I corrected a person who claimed the word 'god' was not in the DoI.

In any case, "Nature's God" is again a much more general term than simply "God".

Why is that a more general term?

the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God

sounds like deism- a far cry from Christianity

I'm not arguing that 'Nature's God' means the Christian God, thought I don't think you can conclude it does not mean the Christian God.

 

[Pyrite]

I didn't say it was. I corrected a person who claimed the word 'god' was not in the DoI.

In any case, "Nature's God" is again a much more general term than simply "God".

Why is that a more general term?

Because "God" is a proper noun, denoting the Christian God, while "Nature's God" or the god of nature, refers to any God who might exist. It's a gesture toward inclusion of people whose gods might not be referred to as "God".

the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God

sounds like deism- a far cry from Christianity

I'm not arguing that 'Nature's God' means the Christian God, thought I don't think you can conclude it does not mean the Christian God.[/QUOTE]

It's kind of the crux of this argument, regarding whether the founders specifically avoided endorsing the christian religion. I believe they did, so as to keep the government neutral in spiritual affairs, because in England, where religion and government were intertwined, one religion was endorsed by the government, and had the right to dictate to other religions how they must behave. Because of this, the founding fathers advocated that government should be completely neutral on matters of faith, and that one's religion was a private matter, between oneself and one's god.

America is a nation composed primarily of Christians. It is also a nation composed primarily of Caucasians. But that does not make America a "Christian nation" any more than it makes America a "Caucasian nation".

 

[garyd]

Pyurite nature's God was an oft used title of the Christian God going back several centuries. The term even appears in a couple of Hymns. To claim this to be a reference anything other than the Christian God is to demonstrate an almost total ignorance of the usage of the term over the last four hundred or so years in the West.

 

[moonlight3]

No it is not a Christian nation. It was and is a secular nation with full religious freedom for all. Right wing evangelicals help create the dip trouble we are in. Religion is private and should not be a part of any decisions made by our government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I was responding to Allie Baba’s implication that our founding fathers were such great and practically perfect people. As I said, they had their biases. Thankfully, that provided us with a flexible living document (The Constitution).

I don't think Allie said anything of the sort. And the Constitution is not "living", nor is it particularly flexible. If you actually follow the law, instead of just twisting the meaning whenever you want, it's damned hard to change.

As for the law, The US Constitution – the supreme law of the land – says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Technically, having the phrase “In God we trust” on our currency is not the equivalent of congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion, it does come close. The removal of references to God will not prohibit people from exercising their religious freedom.

Really? "In God We Trust" comes close to establishing an official religion, does it? Tell me. Specifically which religious denomination does "In God We Trust" establish as the official religion of the United States?

Nothing about the Constitution requires the government to be hostile to religion, or pretend it doesn't exist, or ignore the relentlessly Christian history of our nation. And technically, how is it harming you, anyway? Most people don't even look at the money beyond checking the number.

I didn't say that Allie said it. I said that he implied it.

Seems more to me like you inferred it, and I'm not interested in your issues being debated as though they were fact, or even particularly relevant.

He seems to have great reverence for the founding fathers based on how often he mentions them.

As well he should, because they earned and richly deserve our veneration. What they do NOT deserve is to be glibly criticized by a bunch of armchair ethicists who mistake parroting a lifetime of social conditioning for superior wisdom and moral evolution. What advantages we have today in the area of moral perspective are derived from THEIR wisdom and ability to break out of their social box and come to new philosophical revelations. I sincerely doubt that most of us today would be able to do the same.

The Constitution is a "living" and flexible document. Our Supreme Court is allowed to interpret it in light of modern circumstances. Their interpretation might run contrary to how some people would think that the original authors would interpret it.

Well, that's the difference between you and me. I actually read the document, and venerate the writers for the time-tested wisdom of their work. You venerate a bunch of lawyers in black robes and substitute their agendas for the actual law.

The authors of the Constitution were clearly aware that changes would be necessary from time to time if the Constitution was to endure and cope with the effects of the anticipated growth of the nation. They devise a dual process by which the Constitution could be altered.

Yes, and if you read it, it's damned hard to do, because they did NOT want the Constitution to be "living and flexible". They didn't want the most basic, underlying foundations of our society to be changed on a whim according to the latest social fad.

Amending the Constitution is a two-part process: amendments must be proposed and then they must be ratified. Amendments can be proposed one of two ways. The only way that has been used to date is through a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress. Alternatively, two-thirds of the legislatures of the States can call a Constitutional Convention to consider one or more amendments.

Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states, a process called ratification. Depending on the amendment, this requires either the state legislatures or special state conventions to approve the amendment by simple majority vote. Amendments generally go to state legislatures to be ratified, only the Twenty-first Amendment called for special state conventions.

I think that two thirds of congress (little more than 66 percent), followed by three fourths of the states, is not much of a requirement. Therefore, in my opinion, the Constitution is rather flexible.

Thanks for the unnecessary civics lesson. Now try actually thinking about what you wasted my time parroting at me. You don't think that's much of a requirement? Then consider how few times the Constitution has actually been amended. Look at the history of the ERA. It's DAMNED hard to do.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. First of all I did not say that the phrase establishes an official religion. Second of all, I did not even say, “religious denomination”. The phrase recognizes monotheistic religions over all others.

Sorry, Sparky, but you DID say exactly that. And why did I specify denominations? Because Christianity is not a religion, nor is it a church. There are more Christian churches out there than you can shake a stick at. The First Amendment doesn't say "promote a religious belief". It says, "establishment of religion". That means an official, government-sanctioned church. The Church of England - which is a Christian church - would be an example. England has other Christian churches, but they aren't affiliated with the government, and THAT is what the Founders were trying to avoid.

So you tell me. How does "In God We Trust" in any way establish a government-sanctioned religion?

Government references to god do not harm me. Still, I think that it would be better for America that such references be removed simply out of respect for atheist and agnostic Americans. Why do you think that they should remain? Do believers need them?

Gee, why do I think it's better for the government to acknowledge and connect with a belief system shared by the vast majority of its constituents, rather than being geared toward the beliefs of a tiny, hostile minority? Let's think about that.